Well I happen to think they deserve their own distinct civ.
2 Likes
ahh tbh I have mentioned this in a few threads. But basically if you read my original post in the thread that has been linked, I conceived them as part of a thematically consistant package of civs. Also without getting into a whole other debate about this, basically having just âSaracensâ for a bunch of different empires and kingdoms that spanned across a huge timeline, and which were even in conflict with one another is just not good enough.
1 Like
I think they should be separate.
2 Likes
Central and South America are very underrepresented. To give you a reference, I present the civilizations of Europa Universalis 4 where a good part of the civilizations are. Although it must be specified that there are still several civilizations missing in the EU 4 such as the Chancas (they were Spartans from South America while the Incas were the Athenians from South America).
I also emphasize the peoples that inhabited southern South America, unfortunately many people do not even know that they exist / existed.
I even remember that they name the Tehuelche in AoE 3
1 Like
Civs in aoe are not kingdoms, the list you picked up shows different kingdoms, pick up a culture map to choose civs.
2 Likes
What criteria were used to choose these civilizations?
sometimes one culture people may have multiple kingdoms, such as the mayans, they had many city states, but we cannot make each of them as a civilization in the game, we refer to all of them as the mayans due to the same ethnicity.
1 Like
I do not see it advisable to treat âcivilizationsâ by ethnic groups because the list of civilizations would be much larger, for example, only in Brazil there are about 240 ethnic groups (many of them with their own customs, language and religion), in Peru, there are 54 indigenous peoples, of which 15 live in a state of isolation (many times because these peoples were not conquered by either the Incas or the Spanish, a curious case in America), another interesting case is Colombia, which has 87 Native Peoples, of of which there are 102 ethnic groups.
This is why I prefer the civilizations in AoE 2 to have the characteristic of having been regional powers during the Middle Ages.
I reiterate, a good reference in America are the civilizations of Europe Universalis 4, I know there are many kingdoms and/or civilizations missing in EU 4, but itâs an excellent reference.
I donât think Juggernaut8704 ever implied that every single ethnicity should be in the game, only that factions donât need to represent organized states, otherwise you need to split Italians into dozens of city states and small kingdoms for instance, not mentioning Celts or Vikings, and itâs even before we delve into the fact that this is the feudal age and almost all kingdoms or empires have vassals of different culture and sometimes the ruling dinasty, the aristocracy, the common folks and the army are from different ethnicities. In those conditions, the civs who arenât umbrella-ish to some extent are more exception than rule.
2 Likes
In that case, then the Chinese should have been included in the Mongolian Civilization because they were conquered in the 13th century? or the Byzantines must have been represented by the Turks because Constantinople fell in the 15th century?
The story is very complicated in that sense, and putting some âexception to the ruleâ would only complicate the logic of the game more.
Personally, I would like to see more civilizations in AoE 2 while retaining the medieval essence, although I admit that adding more civilizations would be a problem for professional players, as it involves remembering more unique bonuses of each civilization when a video game must be essentially simple.
I know that the AoE 2 game is not perfect, but I consider it somewhat clumsy to use the mistakes made in the development of the AoE 2 to promote the inclusion of some civilization and even add bonuses or technologies based on fictitious stories, the story is too cool and interesting as if to have to resort to elements of fantasy.
To conclude, I will only put the definition of Civilization in AoE 2: "The playable civilizations in Age of Empires II are based on prominent civilizations of the post-classical period, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century to the start of renaissance it was during the 15th century "
There is ongoing talk and discussion among many players on whether or not new civs should be introduced into AoE2: DE, with arguments ranging from new civs are necessary to keeping the videogame expanding and full of new interesting content, to HELL NO! New civs would only complicate the game further!
In my personal opinion, I am part of the latter camp: 35 civs I think are plenty. However, in the event that the game devs do decide to add new civs into the videogame (which would break their promise that Tartars, Cumans, Lithuanians, and Bulgarians would be the last civs added), I have decided to mentionONE Civ suggestion below that I think would fit quite nicely into the game.
CIV SUGGESTION: Frisians
Central European Civilization
Specialty: Infantry and Naval civilization
Unique Unit: Dutch Pikeman (Cost: 80 Food and 40 Gold) Anti-cavalry infantry unit. (HP: 65, 85 [elite]) (Attack: 8, 9 [elite]) (Rate of fire: 2.0) (Melee Armor: 4, 5 [elite]) (Pierce Armor: 1, 1)
A much better unit at killing enemy cavalry than the standard Pikeman/Halberdier. However, it is a gold-cost spear unit, much like the Incan Kamayuk. While the Kamayuk would stay as a good spear unit with the +1 range making mass-Kamayuk formations formitable, the Dutch Pikeman would be the âTeutonic Knightâ of spear units by having a large amount of health and melee armor that makes it surviving prolonged melee fighting the longest of any spear unit.
Civ Bonuses: War Galley upgrade free, Trade Cogs/Trade Carts get +50% HP
Team Bonus: Gunpowder units (including Cannon Galleon and Elite Cannon Galleon) move +10% faster
Explanation: The Frisians would lack the Halberbier upgrade, so as to encourage players to make use of the Dutch Pikeman unique unitâŠbut they would keep the Pikeman upgrade so that they still have a trash counter to enemy cavalry in the case of no more gold on the map (or lack of ability to trade for gold) I think that making them have most (if not all) naval upgrades be fitting to make the Friesians a viable water civilization. The free War Galley upgrade is a neat little bonus as it means that once you advance to Castle Age, all your ships are automatically upgraded, saving the player time. The added health to trade units is a nod to the trading prowess of the Frisians, aka the âmedieval Dutchâ, which would carry on into the Early Modern Era where the Dutch Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands would go on to form one of the strongest colonial and trading empires in the world, rivaling that of larger nations such as Britain and France. And finally, the Team Bonus would encourage the use of Gunpowder units throughout the gameâŠas I think that currently, gunpowder units (especially the Hand Cannoneer and the Janissary) are a bit underpowered.
NowâŠwhat do you fellows think? Should the game devs add one more or a few more civs into AoE2: DE? Why or why not? And do you think that the Frisians can likely be their own represented civ, or do the Teutons already represent the âmedieval Dutchâ in AoE2?
2 Likes
there is one way to add new civs without changing anything⊠just change existing civs significantly to make them look like new civs , like this mod did :
2 Likes
Yes, they should. It keeps the server afloat, pleases the casual player base and creates new challenges to overcome and knowledge to memorize for the hardcore playerbase. The MP community wants a challenging game with high skill ceiling and new.civs give exactly that.
I would give priority to many other civs before Frisians because we already have a lot of Eurasian civs, the latest DLC focused on Eastern Europe and they seem me to be quite covered by other civs ingame.
Central Africa, South Africa and North America need more love. We have literally no civs from there. Also an Oceanian civ would be amazing.
3 Likes
This is already discussed in many threads. I think we see a new thread about this discussion almost every week.
I am part of the camp: Please dont add new civs and it seems like the devs are part of that camp too. In the past they have said that they wont add new civs. Currently it is already though to remember all details of all civs. I kind of skipped HD. I know most pros and cons of the old civs, but all new civs added by HD or DE are still kind of a mystery for me. That might be a little bit overdone, but i hope you know what i mean. I think there is a lot of potential in the current civs which currently dont get explored. Just to show some stats: Just to play every possible 1v1 match up, you have to play 1225 games. And you dont really master a civ by playing each civ match up just once. To master every civs you currently already need to play thousands and thousands of games. Every new civs lets that number increase even further. So it isnt really possible to explore and master all civs. Note that balance changes also change how a civ meant to be played in some casesâŠ
Also i dont really feel there are gaps between civs. Adding a new civ is most likely a thirteen in a dozen civ. It will play like another existing civ. So i dont feel like a new civ add more depth to the game. It feels like more of the same like we already have. This means that the civs just played out like an other already existing civ. There are kinda two options: It is stronger then the lookalike, so the new civ will be picked only and the old civ almost never. Or it is the other way around and we almost never seen this civ picked.
Those are the main reasons why i dont want new civs at the game.
3 Likes
Those are legit reasons You are heaving. But let me tell you why I am in the other camp and think several more civs will not hurt.
People hve expressed that new civs keep the game fresh and brings ppl to the game, keeps them engaged. This is a strong argument despite we cant just add 20 or 30 more lol.
Anyway look at the last four civs: Bulgarians, Cumans, Lithuanians and Tatars. Except for the Tatars the other three have very distinct play styles. And while trere were some problems with the tatars identity at first these are being addressed and they are looking much better now. Keshiks are becomming usable, the extra treb range is smth that catches opponents off guard and so on.
Also when speaking about new civs usually people consider adding factions from regions like Africa or the Americas where there are fewer civs currently. Such civs have the ability to be more distict from the general Eurasian tech tree. I shared one of my ideas but here are few possibilities. You would decide how unique and diverse they could be.
A.Random African civ that doesnt build Castles but has the ability to âFortifyâ towncenters hving them reserach the castle techs while trebs and petards are trained in the Siege Workshop/ Not having Castles to produce Unique units it would use ranges/barachs to have a cheap UU that can be trained in Feudal Age too. Imagine how different this civ would play also it would change the feudal meta introducing another unit to it.
B. Or what about an American civ that has castle/imperial access to the stable. It will not have strong cav units access but a possibility to run eagles and cavalry together would make for a unique playstyle if balanced well.
3 Likes
Not adding new civs doesnât mean some civs or some aspects of them cannot be redesigned. So while there wonât be new civs (which is kind of set, I guess) there still are some existing civs which I would label as not being quite there, yet. Imo a well designed civ is characterized by bonuses that cohere well as is the case with aztecs or franks, for instance. In that sense, some civs could see some (re)work in that regard and new ideas should flow into that process instead of building new one from scratch.
1 Like
Except they donât.
35 civs is a lot and to the hardcore mp community balance means more than 5 new unbalanced civ in the game.
At the same time we never had better balance not even whet there were 13 civs. It comes down to game balance support. Leave the game like that to hybernate and gradually it will fade.
3 Likes
Every civ has 35 different matchups. Every map is different and has a random seed. The game has already an already incredible high skill ceiling, thanks to all these things and many more. Every game is different, every match up has different aspect and itâs simply not true that everything has been figured out.
On top of that we have balance changes that helps keep the game fresh, so no, new civs are not needed to avoid the staleness of the game.
35 civs are a lot, you canât continue to come up with different civ bonus that are not simply broken or overlapping with existing bonus.
Iâd rather them focus on other things, like giving people different skins for units (which iâd never use) or adding the possibility to create new civs with the mods, not just modify them
1 Like
Thanks god for that. Never did I say otherwise.
Balance changes can only keep things fresh limited time. They are rather a fix than experience enrichment.
This argument has been used for years now and has been proven wrong after each expansion. Huns no houses was game breaking than was malay faster imp time, so was Cuman feudal TC and rams. I would agree there should be a limit and we cant just pour 15 new civs but few more is more than viable.
I have absolutelly no problem with them focusing on other things. I don`t think new civs are needed now or any time soon. But in a couple of years when AoE4 is already here for some time it will be time to refresh good old AOE2.
1 Like